+1.

You can't do better than Phil hubs for a daily rider. Sure they might not be he lightest (though I highly doubt anyone on a steel frame could tell the weight). Sure the bearings are frictionless, but they are durable as old boots. I have 6 years and over 45,000 miles on a set of Phil High Flange Track Hubs most of that on NYC streets with their rough pavement, dust (the kind only in Manhattan), grim, etc etc...and the hubs roll as smooth (if not smoother) as they did when new. I've never had to service them. I've never lubbed them. I've never done anything but ride them year round. They have been on 3 different frames, laced to 4 different sets of rims (mostly open pros) and seen ever weather condition known to man (literally).

Anyone who dismisses Phil hubs as being anything other than the best, most bomber hubs you can ever find...just doesn't have any clue.

Your statement can only be substantiated by Lateef the truth speaker
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/012...7-photohed.jpg

thats terrible

I agree Phils are expensive.
I like 'em though.

Maybe he was just saying he regrets buying them because he doesn't need the best, most bomber hubs ever.

Phils are heavy. I'd like to get some low flange and see if it makes a difference. I had a wheelset made for me last year. it was hiflange phils and deep vs. i wasnt happy with how heavy the wheels were and i sold them.

what happened to the fixie girls thread?

That silly wheelset wasn't Phil's fault. It was those dumb deep-vs. I doubt anyone here can feel a Phil's hub "extra weight" while riding. Most would feel rotational weight of a stupidly heavy Deep-V rim though and performance would suffer because of that.

Don't blame the Phil hubs in this case. Blame your stupid choices.


Who doesn't want the best, most bomber hubs ever? Gawd!

hilarious that you would get so defensive. again, Phil hubs are heavy. don't get your little panties in a wad.

Its disappointing that someone would think weight at the center of rotation matters when they have heavy-ass rims. Phils/Deep-turds vs Phils/OP should feel completely different.

I'm going commando today.

I just find it silly that most people here whine that "phils are heavy" when I doubt anyone here (myself included) could feel that "extra weight". I'm sorry but most people here are riding steel frames or low-end aluminum frames where the "extra weight" is the las thing they would feel.

Now if we are talking about high end carbon or Ti bikes for actual track riding then the weight of Phil hubs comes into play. That being said I know a handful of velo racers that use phils due to their extra heft (once they are rolling they roll), stability and strength. But when you talk to high end track nerds the friction of the sealed bearings is a much bigger issue against phils and why cermaic Mavics or Campags come into play.

But there maybe 3 people on this forum that are racing track at a level that all this comes into play. For your average punter riding a steel frame with toe clips and vans... extra weight of phils is the last of their issues.

LOL "its disappointing"... anyways, any weight matters to me - especially the hub. the flange is rotating weight. thats why i said i'd like to try the lowflange next time. i'm not disrespecting the qualty of Phil, just that they don't work for me. Nerds. The Deep V's were also too heavy and I don't use them anymore either. But the Phils made them even worse!

Wow, you are going commando!

I love you.

+1

Low=flange vs. high flange will make a marginal weight difference (one that most would not feel) but make a huge wheel stiffness difference (which most would feel).

Your logic is flawed.

yup...and I haven't showed for days and ate at the taco truck this morning.

Your logic is flawed here my friend! hf/lf is not going to make a noticeable difference in stiffness and in fact I would argue that you can plead the case that a lf hub can build a stiffer wheel. This argument would come from the idea of reducing the torsional spring back after the initial flex. With a high flange the idea is that this action is accentuated with the steeper angle of the spokes and that with less of an angle the torsional load can be dissipated with less of this spring back. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this but I am 100% sure that a HF hub is not going to make any difference in terms of noticeable stiffness. Why would road sprinters be using lf hubs?
You are accurate in that the rotational mass of the extra weight on a hub will make little noticeable difference in most situations though.

obstacle, i have both low flange and hi flange hubs in different wheelsets. no stiffness difference. but weight does matter. I can't climb as fast with a heavier wheelset. 100 grams each hub matters. On one of my bikes i make it a point to watch grams and that bike is extremely fast. I race with it once a month. It also has a lowflange wheelset and it is no less stiff. Anyways arguing with you is bringing me down to your petty level. I just wanted to give my opinion and you got all defensive and personal. Which i think is funny. People who take this board that serious are a joke. Bye.

This is what I was referring too by a "stiffer" wheel, the "torsional spring back" you refer too. High flange hubs are a track thing made to create torsionally rigid wheels that are VERY stiff and unforgiving to ride on all but the track. Now the debate between what is actually faster/better between Lf/Hf hubs is down to personal preference really. if you look at track racer's bikes you'll see a mix of both types but typically more Lf.

As for sprinters on the road...I'm sure they would benefit from high flange hubs in a straight-line (those that prefered that "feel") but the added weight (in pro level road cycling grams matter) and the harsh ride of the wheel over a 100+ mile stage would outweigh the benefits that a rider could get.

Not to mention "high flange" hubs are somewhat old school, made in an era when material and manufacturing were not at the level they are now for even low end stuff, in search of a more rigid wheel that put the rider's power down on the road better. Look at old road bikes (I'm talk early 70s and earlier) to see what I mean.

Now-a-days manufacturing and materials are so good that a low flange hub with a low spoke count can be made as rigid as a old school high flange wheel, on the road and track.

My logic is not flawed...I just didn't feel the need to explain all of this, but yours was very good.

Rotational weight at the hub as a minor effect, I will admit it has some, but not as much as spoke/rim/tire (clincher vs. tube) would. Theoretically a heavier hub would be a stiffer hub which means the bearings will sit and roll more true, especially for a pro rider who is pounding on them where they could tweak them. The track riders I know who ride Phils use them for that reason. They roll true and they feel they get more power down due to it (even if that is just mental it's an advantage).

CHUB hubs are about the same issue--

on weak hubs the drive side on the rear hub takes up a lot of the energy coming from
the drive train in flexing. I would bet, but I have no specific facts to show this,
that on good high flange hubs there is more even power transfer to both sides of the
rear hub and thus to the wheel--translates into more power transfer.

You know it is nice that every once in a while people here can disagree and come to common ground in a mature and substantiated basis. Or be saying the same thing and end up explaining it better in the end. Cheers to you my friend!

I'm not a big fan of phils because of the exposed bearing seals. IME cartridge bearing seals along won't keep water out forever. Not great considering many cheaper hubs work just as well and give the bearings more protection.

There are reasons you practically never come across phils outside the fixed crowd and the odd tourer.

Miche hubs have the end-cap seals you're describing, and they do absolutely nothing. I'd rather have access to clean the bearing seals than have grit build up between that seal and a cap.

The reason you rarely see Phil hubs might have to do with a lot: distribution channels, price, weight, to name a few. Although I tend to believe the reason they're not widely used is because nearly everyone riding road bikes today is on a racing-style bike instead of the more appropriate sport-touring style. Simply look at how large manufacturers have catered to silly demand for pseudo-racing junk: cheap paired-spoke wheels, lower and lower spoke counts, CF-everything, removing USEFUL eyelets from frames, etc...

I hate all over priced phil fugly hubs.

Next time you come across a set of Phils look closely at the bearings. You'll notice a layer of grease that has come out past the seals, creating a nice watertight barrier.

is it possible to use a pitlock with a front phil hub?

Your lack of knowledge on the situation is impressive. I've been ridding a set of Phils on my fixed CrossCheck, on road and off, as a daily commuter and a long distance rider. It's been subjected to dry arid conditions and muddy single stracks. Its been rained on and hosed off countless times. I've never had to service the bearings yet they spin just as smoothly today as they did in 04.

Depends. If you go with the Track hub, it's the bolt on arrangement. But nothing prevents you from using the Road or Kiss hub.

I do with a road hub, which is the same shell as the low flange track hub.

same with my formulas with phil spec bearings.

Maybe so, but the bearings aren't the same. The bearings for PW hubs are made to a better water proofing standard than the aftermarket ones they sell for other brands of hubs. That being said, I've had problems with neither my PW hubs or my Formula hubs with PW bearings.